Not rules, my approach. Refresh yourself and stop bellyaching.Greylorn Ell wrote:... so I no longer recall them.
Greylorn
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=394
AMod.
Not rules, my approach. Refresh yourself and stop bellyaching.Greylorn Ell wrote:... so I no longer recall them.
Greylorn
I am a fan of the early-Russell.Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:00 pm The 20th century philosopher/mathematician Bertrand Russel proposed:
Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.
Please take a second, thoughtfully evaluated look at this simple yet profound statement:
Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.
Translated-- Let's figure out how the universe began, and how it works, by using the real information, the physics, that we actually know about it instead of philosophical principles that are subject to the interpretation of those with agendas.
I regard Russel's Razor as the only intelligent philosophical criterion for determining the respective values of opposing hypothesis, physical or metaphysical.
What Russell alluded to is we do Philosophy by exploring that No Man's Land while solidly anchored to the Definite Knowledge of Science. Thus we can justify and trace back to some 'definite' grounds when our hypothesis or abductions are questioned.Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.
All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science; all dogmas as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.
But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides, and this No Man’s Land is philosophy.
Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries.
AMod,AMod wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:34 amNot rules, my approach. Refresh yourself and stop bellyaching.Greylorn Ell wrote:... so I no longer recall them.
Greylorn
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=394
AMod.
I don't think your whining is so much of a problem as your arrogance. If people are less knowledgeable than yourself about a particular subject matter, does not mean they are necessarily less intelligent than yourself, and perhaps they could gain great insight by what you have to offer. For me this place is as much a place to learn as it is to profess.Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:40 pmAMod,AMod wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:34 amNot rules, my approach. Refresh yourself and stop bellyaching.Greylorn Ell wrote:... so I no longer recall them.
Greylorn
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=394
AMod.
Rules reviewed, point taken, suitably chastised. Thank you! I'll stop whining.
Atto,attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 06, 2018 8:02 pm I don't think your whining is so much of a problem as your arrogance. If people are less knowledgeable than yourself about a particular subject matter, does not mean they are necessarily less intelligent than yourself, and perhaps they could gain great insight by what you have to offer. For me this place is as much a place to learn as it is to profess.
In short, don't tell people not to post within your threads for any reason, we all have to deal with wafflers that take threads off on incomprehensible tangents where they appear to not comprehend concise succinct rational points, but at least some, myself included, enjoy learning from others. If they don't understand and start to argue with irrelevance, and after one or two further attempts it continues, then eventually ignore them.
WTF are you talking about? Back up this bullshit with an example, please. -GL
1) First premise of first partGreylorn Ell wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:38 pmWTF are you talking about? Back up this bullshit with an example, please. -GL
I think this is a more forward thinking, practical manifestation perhaps knocking Occam's Razor off the top shelf, so to speak. In its effect, it comprehends what we know, and from that permits more metaphysical consideration of the possibilities rather that just stating, hey that's an assumption, so disregard it.Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:00 pmThe 20th century philosopher/mathematician Bertrand Russel proposed:
Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.
Please take a second, thoughtfully evaluated look at this simple yet profound statement:
Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.
Translated-- Let's figure out how the universe began, and how it works, by using the real information, the physics, that we actually know about it instead of philosophical principles that are subject to the interpretation of those with agendas.
I regard Russel's Razor as the only intelligent philosophical criterion for determining the respective values of opposing hypothesis, physical or metaphysical.
Well said, Atto! And thank you! Having verified the existence of at least two clear-thinking minds on this forum, I can proceed to put Russell's criterion to work, by hypothesizing the pre-existence of three spaces, each with only three absolutely simple properties; from which I can develop an alternative to current beliefs about the beginnings that includes human consciousness and explains dark energy.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:52 pm I think this is a more forward thinking, practical manifestation perhaps knocking Occam's Razor off the top shelf, so to speak. In its effect, it comprehends what we know, and from that permits more metaphysical consideration of the possibilities rather that just stating, hey that's an assumption, so disregard it.
Here's a special plan just for you and other pinheads-- Inasmuch as you are not capable of understanding it, why not simply decline to peruse it? Duh? GL
You do not even understand Russell's Razor - you can't make it the sole criterion for evaluating theories - it is not applicable in many instances as Russell recognised when he said use it 'wherever possible'. For example; the question of whether there was a start of time; we are at least 14 billion years too late to collect direct evidence. Or the question is space infinite - empirically unanswerable.Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:00 pm
Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.
Translated-- Let's figure out how the universe began, and how it works, by using the real information, the physics, that we actually know about it instead of philosophical principles that are subject to the interpretation of those with agendas.
I regard Russel's Razor as the only intelligent philosophical criterion for determining the respective values of opposing hypothesis, physical or metaphysical.
It is not "obvious".